Libertarian / person skeptical of marx reading vol. 1 of Capital; I have a question

I'm on chapter 10 right now, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be addressed. It sort of appears as if Marx's entire elaborate system falls apart upon its inquiry. I'm also reading "Companion to Capital" by Harvey, and "Reading Capital" by 'various'. Here it is:

To Marx, the value of the commodity labor-power is the value of the means of sustenance required to reproduce it on the part of the laborer. OK. He also says that the use-value of labor power is labor, i.e., the consumption of laborpower by the capitalist to whom it is sold is the laboring of the labourer (or the capitalist's being able to boss around the labourer to do this), who, in this act, can originally produce (ignoring the "metempsychosis" of the value of the MoP) more value than labor-power is valued at. The difference between the latter and the former is surplus-value. But, why is this possible? How can this non-equivalence occur? It's because, to Marx, the value of laborpower (the commodity) is the value of the means of sustenance required to allow him to 'reproduce himself' DAILY. My question is, isn't Marx wrong here?
The value of a commodity is always the amount of socially neccesary labor-time congealed in that commodity, and never more or less. So the value of labor-power is the value of the MoS required to reproduce that amount of labor power only. But then the labor-power is consumed, and its use-value, labor, not only reproduces the value of the labor-power but also produces surplus-value. But shouldn't the MoS whose value determines the price of labor-power be that amount/type/whatever of sustenance which allows the laborer to labor only for the amount of time needed to reproduce the value of his labor-power?
That's to say that, the commodity "labor power" isn't some mephistophelian contract. It is a quantitative thing, right? So its value should be the value of the MoS which can reproduce the amount of labor, specifically, which its consumption is, or which its use-value is, not some vague "daily" amount of labor-time. "labor power"'s use-value is labor for a certain quantity of time, so the MoS which reproduce labor-power should be only that amount which gives the laborer the 'vital energy' to perform that amount of labor: the same amount of labor which went into producing, and which could produce, if employed to do so, the MoS required to reproduce it. Shouldn't surplus value not exist at all? (I'm not here to explain profit, just to question Marx using his own rules.) Any labor performed which produces value above and beyond that of labor-power should require more MoS to perform, and so should be accounted for in the value of the labor-power sold. Labor isn't something distant from labor-power; the former literally IS the latter in action. The MoS which produce the latter should only be that MoS which lends to the former enough "vital energy" to reproduce the value of the latter.


So, to recapitulate, to Marx:
labourer sells labor-power at market for the value of the means of sustenance required to vitalize labourer ➛ labor-power bought and consumed by captalist ➛ labourer labors so as to reproduce value of labor-power ➛ labor labors even more, so as to create surplus-value
to notorious political economist and philosopher Me:
labourer sells labor-power at market for only the value of the means of sustenance required to vitalize the labourer only for that amount of laboring-time he is going to undertake ➛ labor power bought and consumed by capitalist ➛ labourer labors so as to reproduce value of labor-power ➛ he hasn't the energy to labor more; he has the energy to live and go home and relax and stuff more, but not to continue laboring, because the value of something is the labor neccesary to produce it, and that 'something' is the labor-power for a specific number of hours' laboring, so the means of sustenance, whose value is the value of labor-power, should only be that quantity and quality of sustenance which gives the labourer the strength to labor for some hours and just live until the next day otherwise

I don't know if I've communicated my objection clearly enough. Maybe it's nonsense, and I'm in over my head– this is pretty muddy stuff. (Marx's repetitive fucking jargon doesn't help. He clearly wanted as little people as possible to be Marxists.) Attempting to write this post has only made me doubt myself even more. Anybody got an answer?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (400x476, 162.48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/ChAE5
8ch.net/marx/res/7739.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The laborer produces more value through his labor power than he is compensated in a wage, which is instead taken by the capitalist as profit. This is the concept of surplus value. Is that what you were asking?

You're a fucking retard and haven't understood what you read. Maybe reading Ayn Rand fantasy novels is more suited to your level of intelligence.

Lmao at thinking you found some big flaw in his argumentation after 200 years of people studying that work and only having found two to three legit ways to attack his argumentation (of which all are debatable and subjective)

Also the companion you are reading is useless

And why are you talking about vital energy like it's some shit from dragon ball

Sage because you are retard

You pretty much couldn't help less.


lol
Have you, uh. read Marx. That exact phrase is used in ch 6, and Marx/s language w/r/t to the nature of labor is repeated constantly. I know this is bait but you're retarded

There are tons of baiters/false flags on this board. Gotta tread carefully.

Stop that, Harvey is fucking retarded.

Value of labor power is not bare sustenance, it's subject to various cultural standards, class war, etc. Moreover, a system in which workers could only output as much labor was put into their reproduction would be a closed system that would inevitably and rapidly die out. Workers can output more labor than they consume because outside energy is entering the economy through food (solar energy in plants, etc) and other forms of energy like fossil fuels (heating, transport, etc all part of the cost of labor power).
As well, the output of labor power doesn't scale linearly with sustenance. You can't feed a worker 20 burgers to get 20 times the labor output. You can't give workers gallons of coffee and expect them to work nonstop without sleep. There are obviously lower limits as well.

I'm going to break down your comments.

Because modern society always produces more than what's required to maintain a subsistence level. This extra amount produced is the surplus. When a wage-laborer creates profits for his employer he is, in essence, providing that employer with surplus labor.
This is true in the abstract but it's important to note that the concrete prices at which commodities are sold rarely reflects this ideal value, and is often above or below it depending on a number of factors.
No, because employers do not know (at least, beyond a general idea) what precisely is the minimum level of wages required to sustain a wage-laborer. And it wouldn't be possible anyway since market conditions frequently change and often depend upon local conditions. Further, it's not possible to quantify precisely the value required for each individual hour of labor to be performed. That hour must contain the value necessary not only to feed a worker but also to pay for housing, transportation, and all sorts of other costs. Trying to break it down like you suggest simply wouldn't work.
If surplus value didn't exist there would be no mechanism of accumulation in capitalism.
That's true, but capital has no use for subsistence labor. The accumulation of capital and its transformation of raw materials into machinery and means of production intensifies the productivity of labor and transforms subsistence labor into surplus-producing labor.

This is definitely the most useful part of your two comments. So it's a hard-wired social necessity that the value of labor-power can only be approximated in 'per day' units? But, is that the sole phenomenon on which the existence of surplus-value hinges, that the value of labor-power can't be ascertained to that degree of specificity which eliminates the possibility of exploitation?

This is a summary of chapter 19 which might help clarify the issue. The last point is especially important.

a) Marx begins by mentioning the the wage of the laborer is what appears to be the value of labor. The fluctuating prices tending to oscillate around a normal or "natural" price.

b) Marx then digresses and notes that the value of a commodity is measured by the quantity of socially-necessary labor utilized in its production. It would be tautological to apply this to labor itself.

c) In order to be sold, labor must exist in a raw unrealized form, otherwise laborers would simply sell some type of commodity rather than labor itself.

d) Based on the above, Marx moves onto the following point, which is that if equivalent units of value were exchanged there would be no accumulation of surpluses, and thus no "law of value" at all.

e) Here Marx states that what happens during production is that the laborer works partly for himself, and partly for the capitalist. That is, if the working day is 12 hours the laborer will earn a wage expressing the value of say, 6 hours, while the remaining 6 hours of value remains with the capitalist.

f) Another digression. The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of living labor expended in production and not the total realized labor that may be stored up in machinery or some type of invention. If a machine reduces the socially-necessary labor-time by half, the value of the commodity likewise falls by half.

g) The laborer sells his labor-power, not his labor. Labor itself has no value.

h) Marx then engages in a long criticism of explanations of value based upon supply and demand, which only seem to explain fluctuations in price without actually explaining the underlying value.

i) The value of labor must always be less than the value it produces. If the laborer is paid X amount for his day's work, then that corresponds to the amount of necessary for its own reproduction. In feudalism the serf worked so many days for the lord and so many days for himself, and the division was obvious. In a system of wage-labor it appears that all labor is paid for even though the old division still exists.

j) The use-value supplied by the laborer is actually not his labor-power but its function, i.e. tailoring, shoemaking, spinning, etc.

k) The value of labor is not constant, but can fluctuate.

l) If the capitalist truly paid the full value of labor he would possess no capital since no surplus would accumulate.

Well, yes. Marx assumes that this is a fixed data point for ease of analysis.
You mean that a system in which the means of sustenance only sustains the laborer who consumes them to the degree that he could reproduce their values, and no more, would die off quickly because of the lack of growth or productivity (that it would die off is beyond the scope of this conversation, but taking that it would)? Like, a MoS whose value is a congealed socially-necessary labour-hours would have to produce a + x, or A' labour-hours. A thing whose value-form is some quantity of labor, when consumed, engenders the action of laboring to a greater magnitude than the labor its value is expressed in. I'm pretty tired, but I think this may entirely answer my question and ease my complaints. I'll re-evaluate this in the morning I think.


Hence my use of "value" and not "price".

I wouldn't say that the time-frame is the deciding factor although it plays a role. The fundamental problem is that in all market exchanges there is an element of uncertainty. The employer can never know 100% what the cost of living is for each worker. The consumer can never know 100% the cost of production of a commodity. The underlying values of these things can only be approximated due to market competition over a long enough time period and even then we're talking about categories and not specific individuals or commodities. That's why trying to ascertain the precise value of labor-power for 1 hour wouldn't be practical. It would vary from person to person and only has real meaning when one talks about averages within a business or industry.
I think you're looking at this backwards. The possibility of exploitation isn't eliminated by knowing the precise value of labor-power. If an employer had perfect knowledge of the value of a worker's bare necessities such as rent, groceries, transportation, and a small budget for miscellany, then exploitation would always reach it's maximum potential since the employer would never pay more than absolutely necessary to each worker.

I think what's confusing you is the apparent contradiction between Marx's general principle of assuming exchange of equivalents and his theory of exploitation. If labor-power is a commodity, and commodities generally exchange for equivalent values, then how is it possible for exploitation to exist? Marx's answer to this contradiction is by arguing that wages do not represent the value of commodities produced by labor-power but rather the value of commodities necessary to sustain it. The difference between the value necessary to sustain labor-power and the value it can potentially produce is what makes exploitation possible. This is something you already understand but I don't think the argument has clicked yet.

summary is from the thread here: archive.fo/ChAE5

I think I get it now. To, in dialectical fashion, rebuke my own past self:

Means of sustenance by definition (I suppose. This isn't communicated very well in Marx honestly) empower the laborer to labor for more than their (the MoS') value in labor-hours. There's not really a quantity or type of means of sustenance (being a rather vague social category of things) which only allow the production of the same amount of labor as they are composed of. They are additive things, and the actual body of the laborer takes a central role in Marx: its generative capabilities are the element I missed, I guess.
Again, that's not what MoS are. That's not their purpose.
This is all in reference to some sub-par brand of MoS, which sustains very badly. Like a poster here said, this assumes an entirely closed system. I guess I understand it now. I think.

So the Marxist arithmetic is alright for now. If it will continue to be so, I have yet to see.

Come over to /marx/, we have a thread just for that. Zig Forums isn't suitable for a thread on a long book because the thread will get to page 15 before you're done. You also won't get insults hurled at you for not understanding something.

8ch.net/marx/res/7739.html

Because there is a non-equivalence in the relations of production. The worker must sell his labour to the capitalist or starve. The capitalist, however, can swap out replaceable labourers at will. On average the worker is at a disadvantage negotiating with the capitalist, allowing the latter to extract surplus value in the bargain.

As workers become more organized, form unions, engage in political struggle, this balance of power shifts somehow what. This too is class struggle.

probably not, but lets see it. I hope I understood you correctly.

Labour is the source of value. It is not a closed system where all production that is done is fed into reproducing labour itself, rather, it is spend on things like expanding productive capital (you dont eat industrial furnaces) or other things such as fancy office towers, monuments, war, etc.
The point marx was making about the value of labour power here was the fact that because labour has to be reproduced, they have a cost in labour time. This means that like all commodities in a market, its production will be competitive (between workers) until the price drops to the cost of reproduction. This explains why wages of workers are what they are, enough for a worker to reproduce their labour, to feed himself, clothe himself, travel to work, maintain health, raise kids and make them do the same, but not more.

It takes much less time than all of society works to reproduce the labour itself, the other value is extracted as surplus value and used for other purposes. But labour is the source of value, its not a commodity like the others, precisely because we take it as the root of value.
Think of it like this, take coal as the root unit, then make a coal digger that runs on coal. The coal digger can work for H amount of hours a day, but requires C amount of coal to do so. It takes N amount of hours to mine C amount of coal, so the ratio of reproduction of coal for the machine in a day is N/H. Put otherwise, the reproductive cost of 1C is N/H*C. That means that the other 1-N/H coal is used for other purposes that is not the reproduction of labour. Society is not a static system, the problem you found was found many times before and rebuked the same way. Society does exactly reproduce its prior state every year, or month, or century. Surplus labour not used for reproduction of labour, is used to expand capital or "wasted" on other things.
The formula is not Labour = Value + Labour, but Labour_1 = Value + Labour_2. While labour_1 is used to reproduce labour_2 to roughly the same level as labour_1, it is not the same variable, and you cannot plug labour_2 into labour_1.

Or to put it very very very shortly: The reproductive cost of labour is less than labour itself.

Blame english translators (or the english language) the german and dutch versions are much clearer because of the grammatical ability to easily creative clear-and-distinctive new words.

does not*
Excuse my second language dyslexia

Small addition:
I remembered a nice short way of illustrating it.
Labour_1 and Labour_2 do not exist at the same time. Just like how you cannot use coal in the ground to mine itself, you cannot use labour to reproduce itself, even if two pieces of coal, or two hours of labour, are indistinguishable as commodities. Labour_1 exists first, and then in production is consumed, to produce labour_2. Coal_1 is consumed to fuel the miner, which can then use the energy to mine Coal_2 + surplus, where Coal_1 and Coal_2 are identical in quantity, but coal_1 existed on monday and coal_2 exists on tuesday.

A couple of points:
- When reading Marx, you should be careful that you aren't interpreting conclusions with limited relevance with absolute statements of truth. Unlike modern economists, Marx is often uninterested in explaining the way the capitalist system must always work. He wants to give explanations for specific results we might see. When saying that the amount the capitalist pays to the laborer is limited to his sustenance, this might only be true in absence of further considerations, and dependent on the assumptions he is making in that context.
This is a result of his "dialectical" method. Instead of immediately laying out a complete understanding of capitalism (which is impossible), he goes through different moments of our understanding of it one by one, with ever richer concepts better fit for any specific element of it.
Now, understanding this, we must also see that Marx was a "dialectical materialist", which means he required these concepts to correspond to processes in the real world in a very deep sense. The paradoxes they entail correspond to material paradoxes the capitalist system has had to deal with.
If you read a history book, you will see that there were moments in capitalism's history where people's pay is limited to "that quantity and quality of sustenance which gives the labourer the strength to labor for some hours and just live until the next day otherwise." In some places these moments are taking place right now.
- Having explained that, we have to inspect why people are paid beyond sustenance levels in present day society. The simplest answer to this is that workers have engaged in enormous struggles to shift what is understood to be "sustenance level." If you inspect any really existing economy, you will find that there is a certain level of income necessary to live comfortably, and that this level of income is different depending on the economy you're inspecting. The cost of living in Switzerland is different from Canada is different from Mexico is different from Nigeria. This is because workers have been able to demand different amounts of compensation in these economies, and the rest of the economy has adapted to it. That results in a baseline sustenance level that's different. The logic of capitalism isn't able to go back to absolute sustenance because such a lifestyle is impossible in these societies. They aren't organized for it. Still, capitalist markets do tend towards it, and we see this in that many people struggle keeping up with the living costs of their society using the small income that they receive.
Often this turns into a political problem. A significant moment where it did was the Great Depression. This moment gave the impetus for the Keynesian order that followed, in which government intervention ensured that worker sustenance levels were considerably increased. As we know, this intervention doesn't work indefinitely, and over time starts to create its own problems. You get stagflation, which is then fixed by introducing the neoliberal order, which causes stagnating material conditions for workers and an overly large financial sector, eventually leading into other crises.

Does that help?

You guys need to stop shilling that thread. I was the user who answered most of the questions but I don't visit /marx/ anymore. Anons can ask questions on any of the other lefty boards about Capital and I usually respond, though.

That I didn't exactly understand this was pretty much the entirety of the source of my confusion. It's also the conclusion at which I arrived in already.

Thanks for all the helpful responses! I was expecting every post to look something like